15 ms·

Bullshit

651 points by brianwillis 15y ago

rmoriz 15y ago
There was a very good talk at 28c3 that should remember everyone, that Apple and Google are not working for the public interest (as some fans still believe) Partly NSFW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh07lA9EmIc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh07lA9EmIc or: http://ondemand.28c3.fem-net.de/events/4676.html http://ondemand.28c3.fem-net.de/events/4676.html
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ugh 15y ago
  Those guys are funny! “They sell a product! How evil!”
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    Read the comments on this page, most of the criticism here is just that. "You are the product", thus everything is bad. Google/Apple make good stuff, so they're evil, hold power and are "dangerous"
smokinn 15y ago
I would like to see a list of Amazon's bullshit.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  People who bought what you bought also bought this shitty book.
- rmoriz 15y ago
  "There are two kinds of companies, those that work to try to charge more and those that work to charge less. We will be the second." — Jeff Bezos "We expect all our businesses to have a positive impact on our top and bottom lines. Profitability is very important to us or we wouldn't be in this business. " — Jeff Bezos "We see our customers as invited guests to a party, and we are the hosts. It's our job every day to make every important aspect of the customer experience a little bit better." — Jeff Bezos
  - redditmigrant 15y ago
    How is this bullshit? >"We expect all our businesses to have a positive impact on our top and bottom lines. Profitability is very important to us or we wouldn't be in this business. " If anything thats being upfront that Amazon is a business in the business of making money.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - vl 15y ago
      Probably parent implied that many AWS services are run at zero margin or at loss to block competition from entering.
      - nl 15y ago
        Given that you can get anything AWS does cheaper elsewhere I don't think argue that. AWS's advantages are many, but price isn't really a critical one.
  - vijayr 15y ago
    "premium products at non premium prices" - second part is true, first part is not
  - drivebyacct2 15y ago
    I've read/heard a lot about Bezos and I have my own (pleasant) experiences with Amazon's products and services, but I'm intrigued by your comment. Why do you feel these are "bullshit" coming from Amazon?
  - jbjohns 15y ago
    I don't know about the other two, but the first one is a huge steaming pile of BS. First of all; Apple could have also charged less if they made such a limited device. And second, they do charge about as little for the iPad as they can, which is why no one has been able to make a tablet of similar specs with a compatible price all this time.
- veidr 15y ago
  Kindle Fire is great for reading. Kindle Fire is great for watching movies. Kindle Fire is great for browsing the web.
  - AmazingBytecode 15y ago
    Is there a secret crappy version of the Kindle Fire that amazon is sending to Hacker News readers? Mine is fine at those three things.
halfbrown 15y ago
Well said! We choose to take the bad with the good... Though sometimes companies make it tough for us to appreciate the good.
anonymous23 15y ago
What a Bullshit post.
ychung 15y ago
On that list, I think FB has the worst "bullshits".
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
droithomme 15y ago
Yes, it's true the things listed are bullshit. Yes, I guess we can take it or leave it. Sometimes the "take it or leave it" position ends up being presented in a way that it is framed that those of us who choose not to partake in the rape of our liberties are backwards luddites (non-facebook member here, also got their domains blocked to kill their insidious tracking). I hope that criticism of those who say "no" is not where this article series (if that's what it is) is headed.
- veidr 15y ago
  They're all bullshit except the 'Android is open' thing. That's just a plain fucking fact. Despite the incessant barrage of snarky 'open' jokes from professional Apple frother John Gruber (typically redeemed somewhat by being funny) and M.G. "Mini-Gruber" Siegler (not so much), you can go download the fucking source code: http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html Sure, tons of manufacturers will sell you junky locked down Android-based phones (which they can do because... tada... it's open), you can also just go buy the unlocked phone that Google offers, and install whatever the hell you want on it. And if you really want to root your phone and install your own build of the OS, it's basically as easy as ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA and boom-you're-done. For any reasonable value of open, Android is. Claiming otherwise is just some weird kind of (apparently contagious) gobbledygook nonsense making the rounds among people emotionally invested in iOS. (Which I do use btw; although Android is open, it is still not good enough for me yet.)
  - nailer 15y ago
    Except for a really long time, ie between Android 2.x and 4, you couldn't download the source code. Edit: why is that being downvoted? It's a fact. HN can be a strange beast at times.
    - veidr 15y ago
      That's true. But still, Arment posted this today. Yesterday, daringfireball.net linked to a baseless Siegler snarkophany in the same vein. Etc etc etc. (Edit: No idea why your factual comment's getting downvoted, though. It'll hopefully get rectified as more people roll through this thread.)
jeremysalwen 15y ago
GNU: -Spokesman has poor personal hygiene.
dewiz 15y ago
Marco why don't you transform the post in a poll ? ;)
jacoblyles 15y ago
When I think of something being "bullshit", I think it is totally false. But many of these points are part-truths, not complete falsehoods. For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better. So the sentence "We solicit all of your personal information and track everything you do to make things better for you" is partially true. Of course, something is in it for Google too. When they add new features to a product driven by personal data mining, they seek to grow market share. They also use your personal data to target ads at you better. And they may be using it for further research projects that you don't know about. But the statement has a lot of truth to it. That's not the normal definition of "bullshit".
- latch 15y ago
  I don't disagree, but I think in the context, bullshit is being used to mean PR-talk. As you say, PR talk might be half (or more, or less) truths, but it smells nonetheless.
- notaddicted 15y ago
  Marco's use is consistent with "On Bullshit", Harry Frankfurt, 1986. Specifically: "Bullshit can either be true or false but bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit)
- nailer 15y ago
  "For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better." I think the post is discussing motivation. If Google tracking you would make your life better, but somehow not help them target advertising, would they still do it?
- padolsey 15y ago
  The sentence from Google is a falsehood. It claims that the tracking is done for the user, and implies that this is their only intention. The actual truth is that Google only does what's "good" for the user as long as it improves their market position and/or makes them money. To have a position of "well, they do care about theirs users, even if it is to make money off of them" is intellectually dishonest because you're ignoring the implications of this -- that Google, in the end, has a drive to improve its own profits and market share. Obviously Google is made up of lots of different people and there are non-corporate wings that do actual good things, but this doesn't excuse the basic profit motive that must exist. Google doesn't care if you're getting the best experience from Facebook... they still want you to use Google+. They only want to target ads at me so that I click on them and they get more money. Google cares about my online wellbeing as much as Colgate cares about my teeth.
ellie42 15y ago
Microsoft: "Next generation web is coming" Hacker News: "We don't read it"
- guelo 15y ago
  HN: these discusions are more intelligent than reddit's.
nostromo 15y ago
With Apple, I'm the customer, not a marketer. This makes me comfortable with our relationship. I don't really care about Ping or app store approval policies, so, meh... With Google, I can see their ability to become a shady company pretty easily, but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. Bing isn't so bad you know. But Facebook knows so much about me, and the network effects are so strong -- this is the company I feel most unpleasantly stuck to. Not "Comcast stuck" mind you, but still, more "stuck" than I'd like. It's like my friends keep having parties at a bar I'm not super fond of... and I keep going.
- fauigerzigerk 15y ago
  App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. Switching search engines seems pointless as they all have the same business model (maybe duckduckgo is different), but blocking all the tracking and analytics stuff solves this problem. Facebook isn't a huge problem for me either. I basically use it in read only mode, blocking them on all third party sites.
  - davidedicillo 15y ago
    > App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. IMHO I think that's a wrong affirmation. They restrict what developer can sell through their platform. Big different. You could then complain about not allowing not approved apps on the device, but it would be like saying that Playstation or Xbox limit your freedom by not allowing Super Mario Kart run on their consoles.
    - fauigerzigerk 15y ago
      They restrict what developers can distribute via the App Store, at the same time mandating that the App Store be the only distribution channel. That amounts to restricting what I can install on my device (short of jailbreaking). I'm not sure I understand your Super Mario example. You seem to suggest that it's perfectly normal to face such restrictions. I can assure you it's not normal for me and I'm not going to put up with it.
rickmb 15y ago
Apple's bullshit is strictly business. Google's and Facebook's bullshits affects peoples privacy, and, if they live in a country that values privacy, actually violates their fundamental rights. Facebook and Google are engaged in open warfare against social values and legal restrictions that are prevalent in most of the world (especially outside the US), and the lies they tell about it can not simply be categorized as "bullshit" you can decide to tolerate on a individual basis.
- statictype 15y ago
  Do you have any citations for this? I'm curious to see how Google is unknowingly violating people's privacy to the point that it's borderline illegal in certain countries. Facebook on the other hand, I can easily believe they're doing that.
  - msbarnett 15y ago
    > Do you have any citations for this? I'm curious to see how Google is unknowingly violating people's privacy to the point that it's borderline illegal in certain countries. There's nothing unknowing or borderline about it. Canada's privacy commissioner rules Google violated Canadians fundamental right to privacy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/19/google-street-view-privacy-canada http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/19/google-stre... France fines Google over privacy violations: http://mashable.com/2011/03/21/france-fine-google-street-view/ http://mashable.com/2011/03/21/france-fine-google-street-vie... Korean police raid Google offices in Seoul over privacy violations: http://gawker.com/5798135/police-raid-google-for-privacy-violations++in-korea http://gawker.com/5798135/police-raid-google-for-privacy-vio... FTC settles with Google over privacy violations: http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/ftc-settlement-over-google-buzzs-privacy-violations-gets-stamp-of-approval/ http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/ftc-settlement-over-go...
alpb 15y ago
Just wondering, why are we valuing this blog post that talks about a first world problem and brings no solution or anything critic or productive? Are we biased against Marco.org?
- Hari_Seldon 15y ago
  I'm confused, what is wrong with talking about a first world problem? and what do you mean by "Are we biased against Marco.org"?
arctangent 15y ago
> Facebook: "Our users want to interact with brands." As distasteful as the hacker crowd may find it, this is probably a true statement. A significant number of people (in the developed world) really do construct a large part of their personal identity by buying branded products from companies in order to signal something about themselves. There's a section on this on the Wikipedia page for "Brand": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Attitude_branding_and_iconic_brands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Attitude_branding_and_ico...
- yeswecan 15y ago
  Perhaps if you conflate "users want to associate themselves, from time to time, with brands" and "users want to interact with brands".
- potatolicious 15y ago
  What yeswecan said, but to expand: people like brands - they will gladly and openly declare their brand allegiances on their profiles. We saw this before Pages even came out. What people don't want to do is to be constantly bombarded by bullshit communications from said brands. In many ways, openly declaring your brand preferences is signaling - the "liking" of brands is for their friends, not an enthusiastic wish to receive "special offers" from you. What they dislike even more are the highly intrusive ways brands are marketing themselves on Facebook. It's great that you're running a promotion for a brand I like. No, I will not let you post to my wall as me. No, I will not spam 15 of my friends with your stupid offer before actually receiving said promo. No, I don't want to be forced to "Like" your stupid brand before I can even look at your page. Brands, I want to receive pertinent information from you. If Starbucks is opening a new store in my area, I totally want to hear about it. What I don't want to hear are bullshit "news stories" concocted by your marketing department that is entirely content-free and screams like a cheap attempt to keep your name in my head.
  - Pheter 15y ago
    But it works, which is why they do it.
zobzu 15y ago
Deeply agree on that list. But there are some o at least one company that I'd actually trust more than others, and support, and that's Mozilla. Because there's no share holders. Because it's owned by non-profit. And because their track record is perfect so far. Everything's open. All the development is in the open, not just the code. Everything's made for our best interest actually.
- bru 15y ago
  What about Opera? Their software is unfortunately proprietary, but I trust them. As far as I know, they never sold any data they got though their proxies with Opera Mini. And they got a lot.
  - ygjb 15y ago
    How much is "as far as I know" worth these days?
  - zobzu 15y ago
    I'm liking the opera guys. they do good stuff and they're small, yet still alive. That being said, it doesn't make them good on the open source front. They're proprietary. They don't develop in the open. So while I like them and their product, I don't trust them the way I can trust Mozilla. In other words: I don't trust Google, MS, Opera, or any other such company. They make good products (yes, even MS), but again it's a different matter.
- Jgrubb 15y ago
  Funny enough, I gave FF the heave somewhere in 3.x and switched to Chrome. I love Chrome. I love working on Chrome. But I've been thinking a lot the last few days about what you just said. Now how do I get my bookmarks out of Chrome and back into FF...
  - Jgrubb 15y ago
    So, that wasn't so difficult.
- 15y ago
razzaj 15y ago
I can think of this as well. an "IT security company" : 1 - We secure your network 2 - Our site is down for maintenance
brador 15y ago
I know this guy is one of the HN celebrity set, but can we please modify that title to something more meaningful? Something like: "Bullshit - what companies really mean?"
sneak 15y ago
Does Apple actually claim that their app review process is in _everyone's_ best interests, or just their customers (which is frequently at 180-degree odds with sketchy devs)?
armandososa 15y ago
I always, always, always find what I want from Google. So whatever they are doing is, in some way, for my benefit. And even if I was ready to pay for every website/service I use (which I'm not), ads are not going away. So when they do whatever they are doing to show me better ads I'd say that's on my benefit too. I'm not a Google unconditional fan (I hate Android, love iOS) and certainly they can do better. But implying they don't benefit the end user is what I find bullshit-y. And I think that's a very poorly written article, btw. Marco can do a lot better.
muyuu 15y ago
I disagree about the last line, not "everyone" has their bullshit. These 3 do have and spread massive amounts of bullshit, however.
- Joeri 15y ago
  I've never met a person that didn't have some level of bullshit going on. We all do it, so by extensions all our group efforts end up doing it. The book "why we make mistakes" has a good explanation based on how our mind works why it's part of the human experience to peddle a load of crock.
  - muyuu 15y ago
    Yep, but I wouldn't equate slipping on occasion in some bullshit to have bullshit at the very core of your operation, as is the case with these three companies. I know I do all I possibly can not to bullshit anyone. This may limit me in some respects but so do all principles.
vacri 15y ago
Devoid of anything new or insightful, this article sounds like a teen being 'edgy'.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  My thoughts exactly. It feels like upvotes for the author, not the content.
dragons 15y ago
Microsoft must be ticked off that they were left out of the list.
- krallja 15y ago
  What is a Microsoft?
orionlogic 15y ago
New to realities of capitalism? Good morning America.
JoyxBen 15y ago
Brilliant. Now for an interesting theory of why there is so much bullshit see Harry Frankfurt's essay "On Bullshit" (Google it) :)
smackfu 15y ago
Did marco make his blog much more link-baity, or has it always been like this? It seems like he is playing to the crowd now.
- Jgrubb 15y ago
  I don't know, but I can't believe I'm becoming one of those old fogies who's getting tired of blog posts with *shit in the title.
- hub_ 15y ago
  He got Fireballed. He is often linked by DF too.
edw519 15y ago
You forgot the biggest bullshit of all, Marco. Hacker News users: I'm so mad that the government is doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that big business is doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that venture capitalists are doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that angel investors are doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that <xyz> got funding! I'm so mad that language <abc> doesn't do <xyz>! I'm so mad that I can't jailbreak <xyz>! I'm so mad that I'm actually expected to pay for <xyz>! I'm so mad that more people don't visit my blog! I'm so mad that so many people visit blog <xyz>! I'm so mad that person <xyz> is a jerk! So what did you build today? Nothing. I can't focus.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Isn't this comment just as cheap and reductionary? Many of the things you've listed their affect developers, startups and the system in which they are either able to succeed or fail. Even the characterization as nothing more than "I'm so mad" seems unfair.
  - mechanical_fish 15y ago
    Perhaps it's just an accident that edw519 has juxtaposed this comment against a post that's built out of pure tasty linkbait, an artfully constructed pop-music confection of a post that's predictably climbing the HN charts even though it's built out of truisms that old-school HN readers have read one million times each. But I doubt it. Yes, of course each one of edw519's bullet points refers to something important and true, just as each of Marco's bullet points refers to something important and true. They were true yesterday, and they'll be true tomorrow, and they'll be true the next hundred thousand times each one of them gets upvoted. But the point is that the urge to spend time pressing the RIGHTEOUS TRUTH button over and over like a lab rat can become an addiction that ultimately does not serve you. And with that I'm taking Ed's hint and trying to leave HN for the day. ;) Bugs must be fixed!
    - eternalban 15y ago
blinkingled 15y ago
Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.) It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they use and promote iOS which is epitome of closed which in turn means they don't really care about open - they only care about pointing it out in an attempt to nullify the claimed Android advantage against iOS - hey it's not really open anyways, so get in on our team. Which to me is a obnoxious or even a little evil, cotradictory and self-promoting reason to complain about not being open.)
- bad_user 15y ago
  Their arguments are also inconsistent. Marco is saying on one hand that Android is closed, but on the other hand he says that Amazon's App Store will take over Android's distribution. By definition, if Android wasn't open, then Amazon couldn't fork Android's source-code, they couldn't distribute it on their own devices and they couldn't build a third-party app store. Another argument is that Android phones are locked by carriers and filled with crapware, but again by definition, if Google restricted the actions of carriers, then Android wouldn't be open.
- KeithMajhor 15y ago
  In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be. It's a continuum. Things can be more or less "open" but nothing can actually be "open".
  - blinkingled 15y ago
    I think you make an excellent point. There is no utopian definition of open - it simply cannot exist meaningfully. So there has to be a compromising definition. I like to define it on a scale like Andy Rubin did on D8 interview. Left most is least open and rightmost is most open. I think in the current mobile space Apple sits on the far left, Microsoft a little to their right and Android farther to the right. Only Meego or OpenMoko might sit farther right to Android but they are not really relevant to the mobile market.
portentint 15y ago
At, [insert airline name here], we care about you.
jsavimbi 15y ago
You'd be surprised at the number of people who use Twitter for the sole purpose of following their favorite chelebrities, ergo interacting with brands. I'm going to put my toe in the water and assume the same applies to Facebook.
- chc 15y ago
  Celebrities may have brands built around them, but they are not simply brands. I know a lot of people who spend a significant amount of time talking to celebrities on Twitter, and they tend to draw that distinction too: If they perceive the celebrity is an interesting person, they'll interact. But if the celebrity just seems to be presenting a "brand," they're much more passive, because interacting with a brand tends to feel hollow.
  - jsavimbi 15y ago
    I wouldn't call the fifty thousand @paulg followers to be passive, exactly, as I see a lot of interaction and he only tweets about the business, nothing personal or news breaking. (I don't follow him on twitter, btw.) And aside from his personal distaste for the artist Dale Chihuly, I havent derived much about him from either his essays or speeches, so please don't tell me that he's met all 50k of his followers and somehow convinced them that he's a great guy. So do fifty thousand people want to interact with a brand or not?
    - chc 15y ago
      You're drawing weird lines that I wouldn't agree with. It's a false dichotomy to say "Either these people have met this guy and know him intimately or they want to interact with a brand." I didn't know any of my friends very well before I became friends with them, but they still interested me enough with what I did know of them that I wanted to know more. That's not called "interacting with a brand", it's called "interacting with people." I'll probably never be good friends with Paul Graham, but I theoretically could. Nobody will ever be friends with a brand. People follow Paul Graham because they are interested in his ideas and influence on the industry, not because they "want to interact with a brand."
linker3000 15y ago
Wot, no Twitter?
citadrianne 15y ago
And another one from Google: There's no reason to delete things, ever.
p0wn3d 15y ago
Remember back in the 70's and 80's before cable TV? We only had channels 3,6, and 7. We loved TV but couldn't stand the commercials every 5 minutes. The internet has turned into one big TV commercial. Websites are now 10% content and 90% ads. It is so sad that we let this get out of control. Don't get me started on social networking and how they exist to be the big TV commercial to make boatloads of cash.
jballanc 15y ago
Only one I really take issue with is: > Nobody wants a [popular new product category that Apple doesn’t make yet]. To be honest, when you hear that from an executive at Apple, I believe they are being sincere. You have to understand that Apple does not think of the iPhone as "a cell phone that plays music" or the iPad as "a tablet computer" or the MacBook Air as "a netbook". Yes, this is parsing things rather finely, but if you think that doing so is somehow irrelevant, then I would assert that you don't understand Apple and the way they do things.
antirez 15y ago
If you focus on the news title itself, without clicking, it suddenly starts to make sense: Bullshit (marco.org)
angus77 15y ago
"Bullshit" is a lack of concern over whether what you've said was true or not. "We’re not tracking you when you’re logged out" was a straight up lie.
aangjie 15y ago
Am beginning to go with google nowadays...:-P
Angostura 15y ago
And my personal favourite: "A single word expletive as a headline isn't just a way of getting cheap pageviews"
terminus 15y ago
Quite disingenuous to state that "Android is open" is bullshit and at the same time the article finds no mention of Apple's overarching "closed is better for you" attitude. (Yes, the article hints at Apple's closed-ness. However, only relatively minor, disconnected, issues. Not the overall attitude.)

651 points by brianwillis 15y ago

There was a very good talk at 28c3 that should remember everyone, that Apple and Google are not working for the public interest (as some fans still believe) Partly NSFW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh07lA9EmIc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh07lA9EmIc or: http://ondemand.28c3.fem-net.de/events/4676.html http://ondemand.28c3.fem-net.de/events/4676.html

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ugh 15y ago
Those guys are funny! “They sell a product! How evil!”
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  Read the comments on this page, most of the criticism here is just that. "You are the product", thus everything is bad. Google/Apple make good stuff, so they're evil, hold power and are "dangerous"

smokinn 15y ago

I would like to see a list of Amazon's bullshit.

earbitscom 15y ago
People who bought what you bought also bought this shitty book.
rmoriz 15y ago
"There are two kinds of companies, those that work to try to charge more and those that work to charge less. We will be the second." — Jeff Bezos "We expect all our businesses to have a positive impact on our top and bottom lines. Profitability is very important to us or we wouldn't be in this business. " — Jeff Bezos "We see our customers as invited guests to a party, and we are the hosts. It's our job every day to make every important aspect of the customer experience a little bit better." — Jeff Bezos
- redditmigrant 15y ago
  How is this bullshit? >"We expect all our businesses to have a positive impact on our top and bottom lines. Profitability is very important to us or we wouldn't be in this business. " If anything thats being upfront that Amazon is a business in the business of making money.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - vl 15y ago
    Probably parent implied that many AWS services are run at zero margin or at loss to block competition from entering.
    - nl 15y ago
      Given that you can get anything AWS does cheaper elsewhere I don't think argue that. AWS's advantages are many, but price isn't really a critical one.
- vijayr 15y ago
  "premium products at non premium prices" - second part is true, first part is not
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  I've read/heard a lot about Bezos and I have my own (pleasant) experiences with Amazon's products and services, but I'm intrigued by your comment. Why do you feel these are "bullshit" coming from Amazon?
- jbjohns 15y ago
  I don't know about the other two, but the first one is a huge steaming pile of BS. First of all; Apple could have also charged less if they made such a limited device. And second, they do charge about as little for the iPad as they can, which is why no one has been able to make a tablet of similar specs with a compatible price all this time.
veidr 15y ago
Kindle Fire is great for reading. Kindle Fire is great for watching movies. Kindle Fire is great for browsing the web.
- AmazingBytecode 15y ago
  Is there a secret crappy version of the Kindle Fire that amazon is sending to Hacker News readers? Mine is fine at those three things.

halfbrown 15y ago

Well said! We choose to take the bad with the good... Though sometimes companies make it tough for us to appreciate the good.

anonymous23 15y ago

What a Bullshit post.

ychung 15y ago

On that list, I think FB has the worst "bullshits".

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

droithomme 15y ago

Yes, it's true the things listed are bullshit. Yes, I guess we can take it or leave it. Sometimes the "take it or leave it" position ends up being presented in a way that it is framed that those of us who choose not to partake in the rape of our liberties are backwards luddites (non-facebook member here, also got their domains blocked to kill their insidious tracking). I hope that criticism of those who say "no" is not where this article series (if that's what it is) is headed.

veidr 15y ago
They're all bullshit except the 'Android is open' thing. That's just a plain fucking fact. Despite the incessant barrage of snarky 'open' jokes from professional Apple frother John Gruber (typically redeemed somewhat by being funny) and M.G. "Mini-Gruber" Siegler (not so much), you can go download the fucking source code: http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html http://source.android.com/source/downloading.html Sure, tons of manufacturers will sell you junky locked down Android-based phones (which they can do because... tada... it's open), you can also just go buy the unlocked phone that Google offers, and install whatever the hell you want on it. And if you really want to root your phone and install your own build of the OS, it's basically as easy as ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA and boom-you're-done. For any reasonable value of open, Android is. Claiming otherwise is just some weird kind of (apparently contagious) gobbledygook nonsense making the rounds among people emotionally invested in iOS. (Which I do use btw; although Android is open, it is still not good enough for me yet.)
- nailer 15y ago
  Except for a really long time, ie between Android 2.x and 4, you couldn't download the source code. Edit: why is that being downvoted? It's a fact. HN can be a strange beast at times.
  - veidr 15y ago
    That's true. But still, Arment posted this today. Yesterday, daringfireball.net linked to a baseless Siegler snarkophany in the same vein. Etc etc etc. (Edit: No idea why your factual comment's getting downvoted, though. It'll hopefully get rectified as more people roll through this thread.)

jeremysalwen 15y ago

GNU: -Spokesman has poor personal hygiene.

dewiz 15y ago

Marco why don't you transform the post in a poll ? ;)

jacoblyles 15y ago

When I think of something being "bullshit", I think it is totally false. But many of these points are part-truths, not complete falsehoods. For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better. So the sentence "We solicit all of your personal information and track everything you do to make things better for you" is partially true. Of course, something is in it for Google too. When they add new features to a product driven by personal data mining, they seek to grow market share. They also use your personal data to target ads at you better. And they may be using it for further research projects that you don't know about. But the statement has a lot of truth to it. That's not the normal definition of "bullshit".

latch 15y ago
I don't disagree, but I think in the context, bullshit is being used to mean PR-talk. As you say, PR talk might be half (or more, or less) truths, but it smells nonetheless.
notaddicted 15y ago
Marco's use is consistent with "On Bullshit", Harry Frankfurt, 1986. Specifically: "Bullshit can either be true or false but bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit)
nailer 15y ago
"For example, Google tracks lots of personal data to make their products better." I think the post is discussing motivation. If Google tracking you would make your life better, but somehow not help them target advertising, would they still do it?
padolsey 15y ago
The sentence from Google is a falsehood. It claims that the tracking is done for the user, and implies that this is their only intention. The actual truth is that Google only does what's "good" for the user as long as it improves their market position and/or makes them money. To have a position of "well, they do care about theirs users, even if it is to make money off of them" is intellectually dishonest because you're ignoring the implications of this -- that Google, in the end, has a drive to improve its own profits and market share. Obviously Google is made up of lots of different people and there are non-corporate wings that do actual good things, but this doesn't excuse the basic profit motive that must exist. Google doesn't care if you're getting the best experience from Facebook... they still want you to use Google+. They only want to target ads at me so that I click on them and they get more money. Google cares about my online wellbeing as much as Colgate cares about my teeth.

ellie42 15y ago

Microsoft: "Next generation web is coming" Hacker News: "We don't read it"

guelo 15y ago
HN: these discusions are more intelligent than reddit's.

nostromo 15y ago

With Apple, I'm the customer, not a marketer. This makes me comfortable with our relationship. I don't really care about Ping or app store approval policies, so, meh... With Google, I can see their ability to become a shady company pretty easily, but it is just too damn easy to switch search engines. Bing isn't so bad you know. But Facebook knows so much about me, and the network effects are so strong -- this is the company I feel most unpleasantly stuck to. Not "Comcast stuck" mind you, but still, more "stuck" than I'd like. It's like my friends keep having parties at a bar I'm not super fond of... and I keep going.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago
App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. Switching search engines seems pointless as they all have the same business model (maybe duckduckgo is different), but blocking all the tracking and analytics stuff solves this problem. Facebook isn't a huge problem for me either. I basically use it in read only mode, blocking them on all third party sites.
- davidedicillo 15y ago
  > App Store policies restrict what I can put on my own device. I do care about that. IMHO I think that's a wrong affirmation. They restrict what developer can sell through their platform. Big different. You could then complain about not allowing not approved apps on the device, but it would be like saying that Playstation or Xbox limit your freedom by not allowing Super Mario Kart run on their consoles.
  - fauigerzigerk 15y ago
    They restrict what developers can distribute via the App Store, at the same time mandating that the App Store be the only distribution channel. That amounts to restricting what I can install on my device (short of jailbreaking). I'm not sure I understand your Super Mario example. You seem to suggest that it's perfectly normal to face such restrictions. I can assure you it's not normal for me and I'm not going to put up with it.

rickmb 15y ago

Apple's bullshit is strictly business. Google's and Facebook's bullshits affects peoples privacy, and, if they live in a country that values privacy, actually violates their fundamental rights. Facebook and Google are engaged in open warfare against social values and legal restrictions that are prevalent in most of the world (especially outside the US), and the lies they tell about it can not simply be categorized as "bullshit" you can decide to tolerate on a individual basis.

statictype 15y ago
Do you have any citations for this? I'm curious to see how Google is unknowingly violating people's privacy to the point that it's borderline illegal in certain countries. Facebook on the other hand, I can easily believe they're doing that.
- msbarnett 15y ago
  > Do you have any citations for this? I'm curious to see how Google is unknowingly violating people's privacy to the point that it's borderline illegal in certain countries. There's nothing unknowing or borderline about it. Canada's privacy commissioner rules Google violated Canadians fundamental right to privacy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/19/google-street-view-privacy-canada http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/19/google-stre... France fines Google over privacy violations: http://mashable.com/2011/03/21/france-fine-google-street-view/ http://mashable.com/2011/03/21/france-fine-google-street-vie... Korean police raid Google offices in Seoul over privacy violations: http://gawker.com/5798135/police-raid-google-for-privacy-violations++in-korea http://gawker.com/5798135/police-raid-google-for-privacy-vio... FTC settles with Google over privacy violations: http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/ftc-settlement-over-google-buzzs-privacy-violations-gets-stamp-of-approval/ http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/ftc-settlement-over-go...

alpb 15y ago

Just wondering, why are we valuing this blog post that talks about a first world problem and brings no solution or anything critic or productive? Are we biased against Marco.org?

Hari_Seldon 15y ago
I'm confused, what is wrong with talking about a first world problem? and what do you mean by "Are we biased against Marco.org"?

arctangent 15y ago

> Facebook: "Our users want to interact with brands." As distasteful as the hacker crowd may find it, this is probably a true statement. A significant number of people (in the developed world) really do construct a large part of their personal identity by buying branded products from companies in order to signal something about themselves. There's a section on this on the Wikipedia page for "Brand": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Attitude_branding_and_iconic_brands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand#Attitude_branding_and_ico...

yeswecan 15y ago
Perhaps if you conflate "users want to associate themselves, from time to time, with brands" and "users want to interact with brands".
potatolicious 15y ago
What yeswecan said, but to expand: people like brands - they will gladly and openly declare their brand allegiances on their profiles. We saw this before Pages even came out. What people don't want to do is to be constantly bombarded by bullshit communications from said brands. In many ways, openly declaring your brand preferences is signaling - the "liking" of brands is for their friends, not an enthusiastic wish to receive "special offers" from you. What they dislike even more are the highly intrusive ways brands are marketing themselves on Facebook. It's great that you're running a promotion for a brand I like. No, I will not let you post to my wall as me. No, I will not spam 15 of my friends with your stupid offer before actually receiving said promo. No, I don't want to be forced to "Like" your stupid brand before I can even look at your page. Brands, I want to receive pertinent information from you. If Starbucks is opening a new store in my area, I totally want to hear about it. What I don't want to hear are bullshit "news stories" concocted by your marketing department that is entirely content-free and screams like a cheap attempt to keep your name in my head.
- Pheter 15y ago
  But it works, which is why they do it.

zobzu 15y ago

Deeply agree on that list. But there are some o at least one company that I'd actually trust more than others, and support, and that's Mozilla. Because there's no share holders. Because it's owned by non-profit. And because their track record is perfect so far. Everything's open. All the development is in the open, not just the code. Everything's made for our best interest actually.

bru 15y ago
What about Opera? Their software is unfortunately proprietary, but I trust them. As far as I know, they never sold any data they got though their proxies with Opera Mini. And they got a lot.
- ygjb 15y ago
  How much is "as far as I know" worth these days?
- zobzu 15y ago
  I'm liking the opera guys. they do good stuff and they're small, yet still alive. That being said, it doesn't make them good on the open source front. They're proprietary. They don't develop in the open. So while I like them and their product, I don't trust them the way I can trust Mozilla. In other words: I don't trust Google, MS, Opera, or any other such company. They make good products (yes, even MS), but again it's a different matter.
Jgrubb 15y ago
Funny enough, I gave FF the heave somewhere in 3.x and switched to Chrome. I love Chrome. I love working on Chrome. But I've been thinking a lot the last few days about what you just said. Now how do I get my bookmarks out of Chrome and back into FF...
- Jgrubb 15y ago
  So, that wasn't so difficult.
15y ago

razzaj 15y ago

I can think of this as well. an "IT security company" : 1 - We secure your network 2 - Our site is down for maintenance

brador 15y ago

I know this guy is one of the HN celebrity set, but can we please modify that title to something more meaningful? Something like: "Bullshit - what companies really mean?"

sneak 15y ago

Does Apple actually claim that their app review process is in _everyone's_ best interests, or just their customers (which is frequently at 180-degree odds with sketchy devs)?

armandososa 15y ago

I always, always, always find what I want from Google. So whatever they are doing is, in some way, for my benefit. And even if I was ready to pay for every website/service I use (which I'm not), ads are not going away. So when they do whatever they are doing to show me better ads I'd say that's on my benefit too. I'm not a Google unconditional fan (I hate Android, love iOS) and certainly they can do better. But implying they don't benefit the end user is what I find bullshit-y. And I think that's a very poorly written article, btw. Marco can do a lot better.

muyuu 15y ago

I disagree about the last line, not "everyone" has their bullshit. These 3 do have and spread massive amounts of bullshit, however.

Joeri 15y ago
I've never met a person that didn't have some level of bullshit going on. We all do it, so by extensions all our group efforts end up doing it. The book "why we make mistakes" has a good explanation based on how our mind works why it's part of the human experience to peddle a load of crock.
- muyuu 15y ago
  Yep, but I wouldn't equate slipping on occasion in some bullshit to have bullshit at the very core of your operation, as is the case with these three companies. I know I do all I possibly can not to bullshit anyone. This may limit me in some respects but so do all principles.

vacri 15y ago

Devoid of anything new or insightful, this article sounds like a teen being 'edgy'.

nirvdrum 15y ago
My thoughts exactly. It feels like upvotes for the author, not the content.

dragons 15y ago

Microsoft must be ticked off that they were left out of the list.

krallja 15y ago
What is a Microsoft?

orionlogic 15y ago

New to realities of capitalism? Good morning America.

JoyxBen 15y ago

Brilliant. Now for an interesting theory of why there is so much bullshit see Harry Frankfurt's essay "On Bullshit" (Google it) :)

smackfu 15y ago

Did marco make his blog much more link-baity, or has it always been like this? It seems like he is playing to the crowd now.

Jgrubb 15y ago
I don't know, but I can't believe I'm becoming one of those old fogies who's getting tired of blog posts with *shit in the title.
hub_ 15y ago
He got Fireballed. He is often linked by DF too.

edw519 15y ago

You forgot the biggest bullshit of all, Marco. Hacker News users: I'm so mad that the government is doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that big business is doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that venture capitalists are doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that angel investors are doing <xyz>! I'm so mad that <xyz> got funding! I'm so mad that language <abc> doesn't do <xyz>! I'm so mad that I can't jailbreak <xyz>! I'm so mad that I'm actually expected to pay for <xyz>! I'm so mad that more people don't visit my blog! I'm so mad that so many people visit blog <xyz>! I'm so mad that person <xyz> is a jerk! So what did you build today? Nothing. I can't focus.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Isn't this comment just as cheap and reductionary? Many of the things you've listed their affect developers, startups and the system in which they are either able to succeed or fail. Even the characterization as nothing more than "I'm so mad" seems unfair.
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  Perhaps it's just an accident that edw519 has juxtaposed this comment against a post that's built out of pure tasty linkbait, an artfully constructed pop-music confection of a post that's predictably climbing the HN charts even though it's built out of truisms that old-school HN readers have read one million times each. But I doubt it. Yes, of course each one of edw519's bullet points refers to something important and true, just as each of Marco's bullet points refers to something important and true. They were true yesterday, and they'll be true tomorrow, and they'll be true the next hundred thousand times each one of them gets upvoted. But the point is that the urge to spend time pressing the RIGHTEOUS TRUTH button over and over like a lab rat can become an addiction that ultimately does not serve you. And with that I'm taking Ed's hint and trying to leave HN for the day. ;) Bugs must be fixed!
  - eternalban 15y ago

blinkingled 15y ago

Marco, Gruber, MG have their own BS : *Android is NOT open It gets stated as absolute fact only by Apple and its hardcore followers (Steve Jobs said Windows is open not Android first, DF, MG and MA have been religiously snarking out on any chance to declare Android not open.) It is BS because all 3 of them do this only to promote what they subscribe to - i.e. they have no consequence from Android not being open (they use and promote iOS which is epitome of closed which in turn means they don't really care about open - they only care about pointing it out in an attempt to nullify the claimed Android advantage against iOS - hey it's not really open anyways, so get in on our team. Which to me is a obnoxious or even a little evil, cotradictory and self-promoting reason to complain about not being open.)

bad_user 15y ago
Their arguments are also inconsistent. Marco is saying on one hand that Android is closed, but on the other hand he says that Amazon's App Store will take over Android's distribution. By definition, if Android wasn't open, then Amazon couldn't fork Android's source-code, they couldn't distribute it on their own devices and they couldn't build a third-party app store. Another argument is that Android phones are locked by carriers and filled with crapware, but again by definition, if Google restricted the actions of carriers, then Android wouldn't be open.
KeithMajhor 15y ago
In all seriousness. What does "open" even mean? I've noticed that no one is saying "open source". Not that I know what that really means either. Android isn't developed in the open they just release the source code. That's the only real difference from Windows 7. So is this all just relative to the phone market? It's "open" as far as phones go? I get the feeling "open" is not something you can be. It's a continuum. Things can be more or less "open" but nothing can actually be "open".
- blinkingled 15y ago
  I think you make an excellent point. There is no utopian definition of open - it simply cannot exist meaningfully. So there has to be a compromising definition. I like to define it on a scale like Andy Rubin did on D8 interview. Left most is least open and rightmost is most open. I think in the current mobile space Apple sits on the far left, Microsoft a little to their right and Android farther to the right. Only Meego or OpenMoko might sit farther right to Android but they are not really relevant to the mobile market.

portentint 15y ago

At, [insert airline name here], we care about you.

jsavimbi 15y ago

You'd be surprised at the number of people who use Twitter for the sole purpose of following their favorite chelebrities, ergo interacting with brands. I'm going to put my toe in the water and assume the same applies to Facebook.

chc 15y ago
Celebrities may have brands built around them, but they are not simply brands. I know a lot of people who spend a significant amount of time talking to celebrities on Twitter, and they tend to draw that distinction too: If they perceive the celebrity is an interesting person, they'll interact. But if the celebrity just seems to be presenting a "brand," they're much more passive, because interacting with a brand tends to feel hollow.
- jsavimbi 15y ago
  I wouldn't call the fifty thousand @paulg followers to be passive, exactly, as I see a lot of interaction and he only tweets about the business, nothing personal or news breaking. (I don't follow him on twitter, btw.) And aside from his personal distaste for the artist Dale Chihuly, I havent derived much about him from either his essays or speeches, so please don't tell me that he's met all 50k of his followers and somehow convinced them that he's a great guy. So do fifty thousand people want to interact with a brand or not?
  - chc 15y ago
    You're drawing weird lines that I wouldn't agree with. It's a false dichotomy to say "Either these people have met this guy and know him intimately or they want to interact with a brand." I didn't know any of my friends very well before I became friends with them, but they still interested me enough with what I did know of them that I wanted to know more. That's not called "interacting with a brand", it's called "interacting with people." I'll probably never be good friends with Paul Graham, but I theoretically could. Nobody will ever be friends with a brand. People follow Paul Graham because they are interested in his ideas and influence on the industry, not because they "want to interact with a brand."

linker3000 15y ago

Wot, no Twitter?

citadrianne 15y ago

And another one from Google: There's no reason to delete things, ever.

p0wn3d 15y ago

Remember back in the 70's and 80's before cable TV? We only had channels 3,6, and 7. We loved TV but couldn't stand the commercials every 5 minutes. The internet has turned into one big TV commercial. Websites are now 10% content and 90% ads. It is so sad that we let this get out of control. Don't get me started on social networking and how they exist to be the big TV commercial to make boatloads of cash.

jballanc 15y ago

Only one I really take issue with is: > Nobody wants a [popular new product category that Apple doesn’t make yet]. To be honest, when you hear that from an executive at Apple, I believe they are being sincere. You have to understand that Apple does not think of the iPhone as "a cell phone that plays music" or the iPad as "a tablet computer" or the MacBook Air as "a netbook". Yes, this is parsing things rather finely, but if you think that doing so is somehow irrelevant, then I would assert that you don't understand Apple and the way they do things.

antirez 15y ago

If you focus on the news title itself, without clicking, it suddenly starts to make sense: Bullshit (marco.org)

angus77 15y ago

"Bullshit" is a lack of concern over whether what you've said was true or not. "We’re not tracking you when you’re logged out" was a straight up lie.

aangjie 15y ago

Am beginning to go with google nowadays...:-P

Angostura 15y ago

And my personal favourite: "A single word expletive as a headline isn't just a way of getting cheap pageviews"

terminus 15y ago

Quite disingenuous to state that "Android is open" is bullshit and at the same time the article finds no mention of Apple's overarching "closed is better for you" attitude. (Yes, the article hints at Apple's closed-ness. However, only relatively minor, disconnected, issues. Not the overall attitude.)